Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Well, it certainly looks like others are interested in the same questions. At the end of the day, while we have few answers from 'authority', it is of course important to start asking the right questions.

Thanks Bernd for that perfect example of how people are excluded by default on this subject. I often wonder how you aiki guys remember who is supposed to have it and who doesn't. It must get confusing after a while.

Hi Benjamin,
No reason to feel excluded. Either one can show or not. For the rest, everyone is unsure wether what he feels as his aiki could be exactly the same as someone else's . Even Sagawa is said to have remarked this.
So you have a good point here.

Thanks Bernd for that perfect example of how people are excluded by default on this subject. I often wonder how you aiki guys remember who is supposed to have it and who doesn't. It must get confusing after a while.

You sneak up on somebody in the grocery store and try to push them over as hard as you can!

The aiki that made Sokaku and Morihei powerful, is a product of very specific physical creation. It is demonstrable and teachable; however, it is not one simple "thing," but a sophisticated combination of physical actions and mental processes. That's why people who practice this body method are so reticent to lay it out on an internet forum. It's a lot of work.

The one open source I can think of for understanding aiki, is the collected works of Sam F.S. Chin, current headmaster of an internal martial art called I Liq Chuan. Although this is a Chinese art, and the term "aiki" is thus not used, it -is- aiki and internal power in pure form, and, IMO, more sophisticated in its applications than in any internal system, Japanese or Chinese, that I have ever seen or experienced.

If anyone here is truly, deeply interested in what aiki is, your best bet is to look up I Liq Chuan and maybe order a copy of Mr. Chin's book and some of his DVDs that cover the foundational work for developing internal power and aiki.

The aiki that made Sokaku and Morihei powerful, is a product of very specific physical creation. It is demonstrable and teachable; however, it is not one simple "thing," but a sophisticated combination of physical actions and mental processes. That's why people who practice this body method are so reticent to lay it out on an internet forum. It's a lot of work.

Saying something is "a product of very specific physical creation" in one sentence and then saying it is "a sophisticated combination of physical actions and mental processes" on the other seems contradictory.

Contradictory? It takes tremendous physical training over a tremendous amount of time to play piano technically well. So a talented person plays there is a fantastic amount of skill and training driven by the mental and emotional content of the pianist.

Contradictory? It takes tremendous physical training over a tremendous amount of time to play piano technically well. So a talented person plays there is a fantastic amount of skill and training driven by the mental and emotional content of the pianist.

Is learning to play the piano well the result of a very specific process? I guess I can see that. I might be confused by a lack of clear division between training and application of This Stuff when people talk about it.

Piano is an interesting analogy. If you had two warriors, and one came from a camp where learning how to fight was about as difficult as learning to play piano, and another came from a camp where learning how to fight was about as difficult as learning to play football, and each had about one year of training...which do you think would survive a fight?

Is learning to play the piano well the result of a very specific process? I guess I can see that. I might be confused by a lack of clear division between training and application of This Stuff when people talk about it.

Piano is an interesting analogy. If you had two warriors, and one came from a camp where learning how to fight was about as difficult as learning to play piano, and another came from a camp where learning how to fight was about as difficult as learning to play football, and each had about one year of training...which do you think would survive a fight?

You must be kidding... I both trained formally in classical piano most of my young life. And I enjoyed football. So? And what the hell are you talking about?

How about the 6'4 250 pound lean, athletic kid with a bad atittude who loves piano... That's who'd win the fight.

Geez... I must be missing something... We are intentional creatures. We do not move solely as "machines" in any non-trivial task. There is an entire system of conscious and subconscious control involved in most every non-trivial task involving movement. The skills in any task involve developing physical attributes, physical skills, but also mental skills even at the tiniest levels.

Is learning to play the piano well the result of a very specific process? I guess I can see that. I might be confused by a lack of clear division between training and application of This Stuff when people talk about it.

Piano is an interesting analogy. If you had two warriors, and one came from a camp where learning how to fight was about as difficult as learning to play piano, and another came from a camp where learning how to fight was about as difficult as learning to play football, and each had about one year of training...which do you think would survive a fight?

Since its here I am going to use it as a point of comparison for something I have noticed in my training...

I think a fair goal of mainstream aikido is to disseminate a curriculum that creates a pre-disposition to understand and apply aiki. The actual expression of aiki is complex and not everyone will actually find that path. Some number of students pre-disposed to understand what is happening are exposed to aiki and pick up some quality of aiki and express it in their waza. Not everyone gets it and not everyone cares.

In the analogy above, the problem is surviving a fight in one year. The duration of preparation is one year. The consideration of study is between music (specifically piano) and athletics (specifically football). The question would be, "Which curriculum is going to leave you pre-disposed to understand fighting, given neither curriculum directly instructs fighting? The actual curriculum you should learn is answer is of course hockey.

I am not going to bite on a comparison between the complexity of curriculum. The armchair quarterback in me regularly criticizes the education level of those who play football, but I do not have the presumption in me to subjectively judge the "difficulty" of either. The idea is that each curriculum focuses on a different goal.

This does bring up a regular point of issue for martial artists who compare arts. Curriculum can craft a directed route to a goal. If my goal is to be an effective fighter in one year, that path is different from another's goal to find an low-stress athletic activity; both goals can be satisfied in aikido. This leads my back to my observation that I believe mainstream aikido is trying to balance a curriculum that is consumable to a large number of practitioners, but also pre-disposes the most number of practitioners to experience aiki.

I think this thread is about finding out how we can adjust the balance of training and curriculum to maximize our personal exposure to, and training in, aiki. I think in that adjustment we have a responsibility to respect the entire body of curriculum. As a point of instruction, I think instructors also have a responsibility to respect the abilities of the students and their exposure to aiki. This is the problem with socialized curriculum. Academically, we necessarily exclude individuals who cannot consume the curriculum. English 100 may include engineers and biology majors. But English 375? Nope, just english and communication majors. Will an english major write more better than a engineer? Arguably, yes. Can an engineer write adequately? Arguably, yes. Is an english major better than an engineering major? Maybe at cooking fries... (sorry, some academic humor there).

You must be kidding... I both trained formally in classical piano most of my young life. And I enjoyed football. So? And what the hell are you talking about?

How about the 6'4 250 pound lean, athletic kid with a bad atittude who loves piano... That's who'd win the fight.

Geez... I must be missing something... We are intentional creatures. We do not move solely as "machines" in any non-trivial task. There is an entire system of conscious and subconscious control involved in most every non-trivial task involving movement. The skills in any task involve developing physical attributes, physical skills, but also mental skills even at the tiniest levels.

Seriously, I must be missing your point here.

Sorry Keith that's a tangent.

I said:

Quote:

Cliff Judge wrote:

Saying something is "a product of very specific physical creation" in one sentence and then saying it is "a sophisticated combination of physical actions and mental processes" on the other seems contradictory.

And you said:

Quote:

Keith Larman wrote:

Contradictory? It takes tremendous physical training over a tremendous amount of time to play piano technically well. So a talented person plays there is a fantastic amount of skill and training driven by the mental and emotional content of the pianist.

Since you have experience with learning to play the piano, please answer me this:

Is the skill of playing piano well the result of BOTH "a very specific physical creation" and ALSO the result of "a sophisticated combination of physical actions and mental processes?"

My tangental thought was that if it is so hard to learn/do (I sometimes get confused as to whether people are refering to the training methodology or the application of This Stuff) then it is not something warriors would truck with...but that's really neither here nor there and I shoulda let that through ripen a bit before sharing.

Since its here I am going to use it as a point of comparison for something I have noticed in my training...

I think a fair goal of mainstream aikido is to disseminate a curriculum that creates a pre-disposition to understand and apply aiki. The actual expression of aiki is complex and not everyone will actually find that path. Some number of students pre-disposed to understand what is happening are exposed to aiki and pick up some quality of aiki and express it in their waza. Not everyone gets it and not everyone cares.

In the analogy above, the problem is surviving a fight in one year. The duration of preparation is one year. The consideration of study is between music (specifically piano) and athletics (specifically football). The question would be, "Which curriculum is going to leave you pre-disposed to understand fighting, given neither curriculum directly instructs fighting? The actual curriculum you should learn is answer is of course hockey.

Oh crap you are right, I chose the wrong sport.

Just for the sake of clarification, my very strained metaphor was meant to compare two styles of fighting which have different levels of complexity, or levels of difficulty in being able to master and put into practice the concepts. I'm not sure if something as difficult to learn and master as This Stuff would be popular with professional fighters. But so what - very few of us here are professional warriors, and those who are work on the modern battlefield.

I am not sure about your statement that modern Aikido intends to disseminate the ability to understand and use Aiki. You can say that, and I can say that, but we might be talking about different things.

Since you have experience with learning to play the piano, please answer me this:

Is the skill of playing piano well the result of BOTH "a very specific physical creation" and ALSO the result of "a sophisticated combination of physical actions and mental processes?"

Unless I'm not understanding the terms correctly, the answer is "yes". You need to practice, train, teach your body to do new things. You need to develop a tremendous amount of skilled control. And the very process of playing involves a huge amount of focus, mental energy, intent, whatever. I was in a recital many years ago playing all three movements of Beethoven's Moonlight for a large auditorium. I remember playing about the first 2 measures of the first movement. My next memory was realizing I was letting the last note linger a bit too long. I sat back from the keyboard and realized I was drenched with sweat and vaguely started to get my orientation back. It is exhausting physically and mentally.

If your point is choosing a means to becoming a better fighter faster or more efficiently, well, that's fine if that's your goal. If your goal is learning a specific art, Aikido in this instance, the question starts with defining what makes Aikido "Aikido" and then from there talking about methods to gaining master in that particular art. We might then say that Aikido isn't the best choice for training warriors to head out in to battle next week and instead go with krav maga. Or we might decide that the training we'll do will focus on "deadly ninja skills" first and foremost then develop the rest later. Okay, fine, but that's all about how to train, how to get there, what your goals are, etc.

But none of those really address the first part -- namely identifying what it is to do Aikido. And if you don't start from a common understanding (which is clearly evident in this case) then I'm not sure the second conversation matters.

In other words if you believe Aikido is defined as Cady has up above then the means of getting that skill is what it is and the other objections aren't relevant to that definition.

But I'm posting from a less than optimal place while I wait incessantly for stuff to happen here. So I'm leaving the conversation. I honestly don't get it.

Unless I'm not understanding the terms correctly, the answer is "yes". You need to practice, train, teach your body to do new things. You need to develop a tremendous amount of skilled control. And the very process of playing involves a huge amount of focus, mental energy, intent, whatever. I was in a recital many years ago playing all three movements of Beethoven's Moonlight for a large auditorium. I remember playing about the first 2 measures of the first movement. My next memory was realizing I was letting the last note linger a bit too long. I sat back from the keyboard and realized I was drenched with sweat and vaguely started to get my orientation back. It is exhausting physically and mentally.

Thanks for the clarification, I get it now. I agree with what you are saying and I think Cady was saying the same type of thing. It just sounded like she was saying that the training process is very specific and singular (only one road leading to Rome) and at the same time extremely complex and diverse. Now, even then, it could just be one very complicated road leading to Rome. But I think Cady was talking about the thing itself in the first phrase - the This Stuff - and in the second, she was describing the training process for developing it.

It is interesting that you comment that first you figure out what Aikido is supposed to teach and then you remove the obstacles to learning that...the difficulty in figuring out what Aikido is supposed to teach is probably why we are all here in this strange little subforum in the first place. Maybe the reason why Takeda and Ueshiba got no shortage of people in the door was because Japanese folks in the late Meiji through early Showa days were starving for This Stuff. They had an notion of what the masters of yore could do and they wanted that. These days, people take up Taiji largely because they heard it was a way to keep yourself healthy as you age, and they take up Aikido because they heard it has a unique philosophy about how to resolve conflict.

Contradictory? It takes tremendous physical training over a tremendous amount of time to play piano technically well. So a talented person plays there is a fantastic amount of skill and training driven by the mental and emotional content of the pianist.

I like the piano analogy too. I am a teacher and over the years have noticed a few things. Sometimes, you get two kids who can both play beautiful piano - all learned by heart of course. But one will be able to create whereas the other will just not be able to do anything but copy. So, who is better? Kinda obvious I guess. And back to Aikido - I think most people are just at the level of trying to copy.

Just for the sake of clarification, my very strained metaphor was meant to compare two styles of fighting which have different levels of complexity, or levels of difficulty in being able to master and put into practice the concepts. I'm not sure if something as difficult to learn and master as This Stuff would be popular with professional fighters. But so what - very few of us here are professional warriors, and those who are work on the modern battlefield.

I am not sure about your statement that modern Aikido intends to disseminate the ability to understand and use Aiki. You can say that, and I can say that, but we might be talking about different things.

I think you have a point about the extreme complexity of IS training. As a specific example, I think the training style is not suited for everyone. My point later in my post was about the goal of generalized education. Aikido is a generalized education for the exact point you list - most of us are not professionals in aikido. The curriculum of mainstream aikido is consistent with the level of investment most of us practice - hobby. This is not a criticism - the teaching should match the expectation. I think we get out of whack when we believe 2 classes a week of falling down = aiki master in 15 years.

My point about modern aikido is directed at the concept of generalized education. The curriculum should be directed at educating the largest number of practitioners to a level where they can see/touch/do aiki in their career. I think there is criticism modern aikido can no longer satisfy that goal. If this is the case, aikido will need to change its curriculum to target a smaller, more capable, demographic of practitioners or introduce elements that are better at producing aiki. Or both. I think regardless of what you think is aiki, we need to assess whether aikido curriculum is accomplishing its goal of education.

Aiki is a specific training. Tomiki has kata different from USAF from Yoshinkan. I find myself defending aiki as a point of illustrating that we are generally accepting of different training methods, even ridiculous ones (FYI, Phi regularly trains with ribbons). Yet we seem to have little tolerance for aiki training. Moreover, I am not sure aiki training should be part of modern aikido. The Aikikai made a decision to remove weapons from its curriculum. Why? Because the Aikikai felt they could continue communicating the weapons principles via empty-hand and the specialized curriculum of weapons was unattractive to a large market of practitioners (whether that is happening is another debate). I enjoy weapons and I feel they are important to training. However, I also understand the decision.

Finally, I think aiki runs into a problem because is real. I think it is a pill to swallow to recognize what you have been doing ain't IS. Buy Gleason's DVD and in a week you can feel this stuff. Spend a weekend with Dan and he will have you feel this stuff. Its a snake oil that works and we are caught calling it snake oil, but at the same time you're better. We are left saying,"well, it's not what I am doing and [I believe] I am doing aiki, therefore it cannot be aiki." We forget to face the other possibility, that what we are doing isn't aiki. But we can add "yet" and figure out how.

Seriously, I had that conversation in my head about 5 years ago. My answer? "F^%k this." Since then I have been working to figure out how to get this stuff into my aikido.

My point about modern aikido is directed at the concept of generalized education. The curriculum should be directed at educating the largest number of practitioners to a level where they can see/touch/do aiki in their career. I think there is criticism modern aikido can no longer satisfy that goal. If this is the case, aikido will need to change its curriculum to target a smaller, more capable, demographic of practitioners or introduce elements that are better at producing aiki. Or both. I think regardless of what you think is aiki, we need to assess whether aikido curriculum is accomplishing its goal of education.

Here's what I think is a problem with a general re-engineering of Aikido to have more This Stuff in it. How are you going to get people to sign the registration forms and put their checks in the box every month? We can't even define what we are talking about here; it is complicated and difficult to train it, it is just as hard to describe what it is. People are still talking around the actual training methodologies on this forum. If you want to change Aikido to have This Stuff there needs to be writing about it, pictures, videos, all of that.

Aikido doesn't need all that hassle - people hear about how it has a great philosophy, it has a meditative aspect to it, it is about resolving conflict constructively, and that's what attracts people. People come and watch class and they see people performing these circular movements, being centered, leading and connecting, and they go, that's great!

We can't even define what we are talking about here; it is complicated and difficult to train it, it is just as hard to describe what it is. People are still talking around the actual training methodologies on this forum. If you want to change Aikido to have This Stuff there needs to be writing about it, pictures, videos, all of that.

You know, I teach English (and Japanese) and English teachers still can often not agree on what is or is not a good or a bad essay. Their opinions differ vastly, but, they continue to teach and test all the same. It's normal. Maybe for Aikido, it could be the new normal.

Since I've been off and on bored out of my mind hanging out at a hospital for a relative...

I think Cliff here has a point and it is something I've been trying to convince folk of for years. Yeah, I'm in the IS camp. I've been quite honored to have time on the mat with quite a few really talented folk over the years. I do see a consistent story underlying all this stuff and I do think that this is pretty much what Takeda and O-sensei were doing. But that said I recognize that Tohei had his take on things. As did Kisshomaru. And each deshi themselves had different views in to what was going on. And as a result all of them are doing some aspect of Ueshiba's Aikido. All of them. Even where they differ. And I am at a loss to understand why that's hard for people to grok.

A tree is often used to represent a lineage. And yes, the lineage goes off in all sorts of different branches forming new branches themselves. And that's fine. But so many want to ask "Which one is the real deal?". And frankly I don't think the question has an answer. Or the answer isn't going to be satisfying. Because they all are. And they all aren't. Ueshiba Morihei is gone. Takeda is gone. What we have is what we have now.

Now some will continue to argue that "aiki" is this or that or something else. I am cool with that because it is all those things depending what branch you happen to be swinging from. And I'm *perfectly* happy to acknowledge that the one I'm on, the ideas I have, my understanding of Aiki is itself a branch somewhere on that same tree. I'd like to think from my own experiences and my own time spent that it is relatively close to the trunk, but I'm also not so concerned about it if it's not. It just is what it is.

The beauty of Aikido in today's world is that it is widely available, popular and accessible. And I think there's some really great stuff out there being done in styles that have a totally different take on what aiki is from my own. I may disagree that it is the same thing, but hey, opinions vary. And just because I don't want to do what that guy over there is doing because I think it lacks the essential aiki core that I see as important doesn't mean I think what they're doing is worthless. Just not on the right track for me. For instance I know one guy who is remarkable in his timing, flow, relaxation and everything else who can do really amazing stuff. But at the same time he doesn't have that core of Aiki that I want. But I respect his ability and have zero problem saying he's doing aikido, because frankly he is. Is it the same as what Ueshiba and Takeda were doing? Well, not IMHO but hell, who cares what I think. And the style he does is popular, well designed, beloved by its practitioners, and I think does a world of good for their students. And I don't need to be the one to argue about their "legitimacy". It's not my concern. And not my place.

So I don't worry much about these things. I do, however, spend a lot of time training myself. I do spend a lot of time trying to figure out ways to improve my teaching to help transmit what I think is going on to those handful who I train with. Which is exactly what everyone else should be doing with whatever the heck it is they think Aikido is for them. And more branches will form, more bifurcations happen. If this stuff is worthy and worthwhile it will grow stronger. And the branch will itself grow. If not, it will go away.

Saying something is "a product of very specific physical creation" in one sentence and then saying it is "a sophisticated combination of physical actions and mental processes" on the other seems contradictory.

Hi Cliff,
I don't think so at all. IMO, a good physicist can give a brief synopsis of what string theory is, but to get to the point where he can do so, he had to understand some complex concepts to great depth. It's kinda like that. Not that aiki is as complicated as string theory. It ain't. There is a basic set of processes one must gain some proficiency in, but then there are myriad variations and nuances in how to use it, and to mix it up...and that's where the sophistication is.

Sometimes, the simpler something seems, the more sophisticated it turns out to be because someone (or someones) refined it over time and presented it in a teachable way that the rest of us can comprehend and do.

Here's what I think is a problem with a general re-engineering of Aikido to have more This Stuff in it. How are you going to get people to sign the registration forms and put their checks in the box every month? We can't even define what we are talking about here; it is complicated and difficult to train it, it is just as hard to describe what it is. People are still talking around the actual training methodologies on this forum. If you want to change Aikido to have This Stuff there needs to be writing about it, pictures, videos, all of that.

Dan's posted some very succinct and informative definitions right here on Aikiweb. Anyone who comes and trains with us welcome to as much detail as they can handle, but a conversation on an internet forum isn't really the right medium for it. For that matter, there's not much in the way of detailed description of training methodologies even for conventional Aikido on the forums - and nobody seems to feel the lack.

If the money is an issue for you then that's fine, but around here we don't worry about checks every month - commercial viability just isn't an issue for us. Neither is "trying to change Aikido", I'm just worried enough about my own training and the folks who train with us - there is no secret movement afoot to change what anybody and everybody else is doing.

Quote:

Cliff Judge wrote:

Aikido doesn't need all that hassle - people hear about how it has a great philosophy, it has a meditative aspect to it, it is about resolving conflict constructively, and that's what attracts people. People come and watch class and they see people performing these circular movements, being centered, leading and connecting, and they go, that's great!

And that's fine. But there's a place for deeper training as well.

Just because people like Tiger Woods exist doesn't mean that people can't go off and just hang out with their buddies and whack a couple of balls once a month.

In case anyone was inclined to believe the above spin, the actual reason is that folks at seminars are asked not to discuss the material online in an attempt to keep it exclusive and monetizable. Most of the threads on this subject are marketing dressed up as discussion. Personally, I very much look forward to a frank discussion of training modalities instead.

In case anyone was inclined to believe the above spin, the actual reason is that folks at seminars are asked not to discuss the material online in an attempt to keep it exclusive and monetizable. Most of the threads on this subject are marketing dressed up as discussion. Personally, I very much look forward to a frank discussion of training modalities instead.

If that's true than I'm looking forward to seeing some money, because I haven't seen a dime yet.

Dan, FWIW, rarely makes much of a profit coming out here anyway, but hanging out with us may make up for it.

Also FWIW, Dan's never discouraged me from talking about what he's doing in any medium I choose to use - in fact he has specifically stated that he didn't want people to hold information to themselves.

Like Sam says - "the secrets protect themselves", it's just too damn hard for most folks.

To be clear, I never said there was a problem with people making money (or not ) from their hard work, nor with them and their friends using a popular forum to market that work. I don't even claim that the information should be free, since it never has been before (although nobody else is nearly as allergic to youtube as you folks).

I just want to be a part of a respectful and mutually beneficial online discussion of internal training modalities, and am hoping one comes into existence at some point.

What Chris said. Sums it up.
Benjamin, we have had discussions here on aiki, right in this forum. Somehow, and perhaps not surprisingly, they did not get far because in words it just comes across as so esoteric. We could try it again, though.